firewall_set_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does the disclosure work: it states the tool reports the task to a firewall and that the firewall uses it to evaluate later calls. It could be slightly clearer about overwrite/persistence semantics, though 'again if the user changes the subject' implies replacement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool does, when to call it, and why it matters. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, no-output setter, the description covers what, when, and why. There is no output schema to explain, and the tool's simplicity means nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the single `task` parameter as 'The user's request, in the user's own words' (100% coverage). The description echoes that rather than adding format rules beyond 'one sentence', so it meets the baseline but adds little extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('tell agent-firewall what the user actually asked for') and clarifies it is a state-setting tool for task context, not a file operation like its siblings. It is immediately distinguishable from the file-management tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this before your first tool call, and again if the user changes the subject.' It also explains the consequence (firewall judges later tool calls), so an agent knows exactly when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.